catadc

You should scan ebay from time to time. I bet you don't have such a cute face in your collection: This is for sale as of now:

@Topcat7 It is exactly the same type of fake like the one you posted in this topic. Still do not understand why @Simon gives the benefit of the doubt to the "UK based" ebay sellers who throw these on the market.

What I do not understand - why are some tetartera so rare? If it was the lowest denomination, it would imply it was minted in large numbers. Simon mentioned that it was never recalled. Therefore, large numbers + long period of circulation + small size = high chance to get lost. We can understand that few will hoard tetartera rather than any higher denomination, thus low to no presence in hoards makes sense. Still, some are very, very rare. Would this support the idea mentioned above that some were minted by local authorities (sort of Roman provincial or medieval regional)? Or simply that were minted in low numbers to begin with?

The 30 nummi of Phocas are known with years 4 (II II), 6 (G) and 7 (GI) from Constantinople, 5 (V) and 6 (VI) from Nicomedia, and 6 (G) and 8 (GII) from Cyzicus. As you can see, there are some gaps, so theoretically can be something else than year 6. For CONB I've seen only year 6 (G).

@ela126 When I decided not to bid on that coin, it was because the year was not visible. Here's mine and more info:

Just to leave here my SB2059 - 17 mm, 1.55gr. Did not study this period or these issues.

@kirispupissmall world. Robinjojo's link is nice and you'll probably get an answer easily by mail or phone, especially if you ask them in Luxembourgish. I cannot help with other info; I moved here from the EU. Otherwise, the real estate market is finally decreasing slowly on minimal volumes, there were 37 Celsius at one point last summer and you're optimistic with "a few months to learn the language", unless she's German or a natural talent in foreign languages. More than 5 years here and I know still the two words that everyone is learning on their first day.

Legally, the nature of the services making the object of the premium are not disclosed in the terms and conditions of the auction. One can assume that a correct attribution is part of these services, but there are no contractual grounds for this assumption. Is there any auction house saying "you pay x% because we do x, y and z for you as buyer"? Moreover, there are a few auction houses offering minimal information on the coins they sell, leave alone attribution.

If it's solely to protect potential buyers - no. Education comes at a cost and everyone should do their research before bidding, or bear the cost of ignorance. If it's a technical / constructive discussion on coin's attribution, then yes, why not.

I also noticed that shipping fees increased during the last haft year. Probably we notice this because we bid on low value coins (nothing wrong with this). Or, if we miss a sole main target, the shipping of any prior "snack" can hurt. Luckily, I live close to a multiple border. Last but least purchase was shipped to a friend's address across the border for 3 EUR regular post. Not once I chose regular post, as the post is reliable in the Western Europe, and chose the more expensive transport for rare and hard to replace coins.

Very busy lately and no time for coins. Managed to get two x 30 nummi of Tiberius II: - One from Constantinopole, officina Delta, being the officina I was missing for his 30 nummi from Constantinopole. I now have all (A, B, D and E). While A and B are common, D and E are rare. Another Delta sold this week-end for 30 EUR. I was the underbidder on that, and although the coin shows good details, I was afraid of the patina chips and potential bronze disease (SOL, auction XXV, lot 755). - One from Antioch. I hoped for a second that the price will be decent, due to being misattributed, but it was not. 😞 It is the only 30 nummi with XXX reverse (Tiberius II + Phocas) where the emperor can hold something in his hands.

841 - all people on reverse seem to be the same height. 808 - has no cross on reverse. Look for 836 - that has, on some copies, a taller central figure on obverse and ANNO over cross on reverse. It is hard to say what was before. Probably another follis of Heraclius, with ANNO on the left (O visible) and officina A?

It is most probably a 47, which is one of the common A2s. As for the "28g" - no way. If you get any byzantine, let alone A2s, at 28g, let me know; I would like to see it. My A2.47 is 30 mm and 14g and quite similar in style to the OP.

My problem with the "sand patina" is that a few coins had bronze disease under the dirt. In all cases where I noted it and removed the dirt, the bronze disease was worse than I initially anticipated. For this reason, I am not a big fan of sand patina and generally clean my coins. Second point - some coins have a really shallow relief. Once cleaned, they lose a lot of appeal, even if the fields are solid and even. Sometimes, dirt just hides fields with bad pitting. In both cases, professional repatination will enhance the look of the coin. I guess it is a matter of taste. Some coins look so much worse if fully cleaned that I do not exclude repatination to enhance the details.

There are several UK sellers with some caricatural fakes on ebay.

This is the best Phoenix I have. One other came from an uncleaned lot, over 200 coins cleaned and found just one Phoenix.

@Furryfrog02 I believe your coin is an SB 805 or similar follis of Heraclius overstruck on a follis of Phocas (SB 659?). The left pic would be the M on the reverse of the Heraclius follis. The right pic would be the cross between Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine, with the TH above, part of the legend, and struck off-center. This off-center strike would obliterate the left X on the undertype. The weight of 10.75 says follis; it is heavier than any 3/4 follis of Phocas that I have on my records.

@voulgaroktonou I collect this denomination and I am missing the one from Antioch. That is very rare comparing to the others. And yours are all very nice coins. To add something to this topic - the most common 30 nummi is the CONA, the only type I have two pieces.

Unfortunately, my "eye for detail" is totally blind when talking trachea; these are totally out of my interest zone. If tagging people, maybe @TheTrachyEnjoyer could help?

For byzantines, http://labarum.info/lbr/ is a great support to identify coins. The OP coin is a follis. Go to link above, click advanced search, choose Denomination = follis and start looking from the bottom. That to teach people how to fish...

For the record - I believe all the above are official issues. In addition to the above SB 1930, I have seen a few SB 1929 overstruck. I believe some of the first tetartera were overstruck on folles. I had a look on my (incomplete) records of the tetartera collection. My Alexius tertartera minted in Constantinopole arequite consistent in weight, around 3.5 - 4.1 gr. Those minted in Thessalonica are between 0.9 - 5.5 gr. Lack of control, contemporary imitations or 13th century imitations? Might be very well all valid answers. We agree that SB 1932 was heavily imitated in the 13th century. I have seen some very strange looking SB 1931 during the last year in auctions. Looking again at the pics above, I have my doubts that #2 is authentic (Mary looks so thin and small). I have my doubts on this SB 1929 below (17 mm, 2.66 gr) that I marked as not an original issue. And my SB 1930. I do not have dimensions.

There you go. If you want an xxx coin, can get one of Tiberius II, as those are more common.

The topic will probably go better in the Roman Empire section. Most of the coins available for cleaning come from that era. I saw that people in the Byzantine section rarely clean their coins. I started to clean coins as a hobby for the cleaning activity itself, and later branched into collecting and into Byzantines, where I am today. I am using a similar microscope and two types of high precision cutters - one like the one at the right in your photo, and a less pointy one. It comes with a lot of training hours to not scratch or otherwise damage the coin with those tools; here the cheap coins are good for, to train. My observation - late roman bronzes and byzantines react differently to cleaning. I now stick with wet cleaning for LRBs (soak in distilled water, scrape dirt, brush and repeat) and dry cleaning for byzantines (scrape dirt; brush and wash the coin only at the end). Finding "unsearched" batches in today market is not going to happen. Expect very common coins in better condition or accept generally poor condition for a chance to a more rare coin. But as forum colleagues use to say, "nothing is more common than a rare coin". Most of the ancient coin collectors have a rare coin that is worth just a few bucks, myself included. I ended up purchasing in auctions my cleaning material - coins that I want and will stay in my collection after cleaning.

@Topcat7 There were a lot of old imitations of the SB 1932 half tetarteron of Alexius I. You can see two below from my collection. But your coin is most likely a recent fake, with similar style of some coins sold on ebay by UK sellers. Maybe @Simon , the tetartera expert, could confirm.

I will squeeze in one post before the wrap-up. A few more portraits that I like or I find interesting for some reason. A profile portrait of Justinian on a pre-reform follis (SB 160). And one post-reform and post-plague (SB 223). On this coin, detail are nice except the face. It is supposed to be Justin II (SN 383). One of the first coins I bought when I started collecting byzantines. This coin of Theophilus (SB 1667) was my 6th byzantine. Never got a second coin of him. And this Romanus I (SB 1760) was my 10th. And, you might have guessed, never got a second one. In the beginning, I was poking around to see what I find interesting. Although the portraits of these are not bad, did not stick to this period. What I find interesting about this Constantine X, SB 1854, is that it is struck over the more common SB 1853. Would be interesting to know if any 1853 was struck over 1854... I have quite a few coins of Alexius I. Most have bad portraits. This one is one of the best byzantine portraits I own, although the coin is small size - tetarteron, SB 1922. I have better (overall) coins of John II, but not necessarily better portraits of him. SB 1954, tetarteron. These half tetartera of Manuel I (SB 1979), although very small, have some of the best portraits of Manuel in copper. This tetarteron of Manuel I, SB 1970, is not a great coin. It is just surprising how the portraits are good comparing to the rest of the field. One of the latest aquisitions, a tetarteron of John III, SB 2119. Not sure whay I am including this stamenon of Andronicus III (SB 2477). Maybe just because I found it interesting enough to buy it, for a (still) unknown reason. There is (at least half) a portrait somewhere in there.